Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!




Last Active
  • Expansion's never able to fit well

    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Loke666 said:

    Agreed, if you don't get anything new what is the point?
    Sovrath said:
    I love leveling. I always welcome additional levels.

    I think this is a "your mileage may vary" thing.
    But you are just getting a few more HP for most of them anyways, so what is the point?

    With fewer levels each level actually would give you something new, you don't think it would be more fun if gaining a level actually meant something?

    I am not saying that leveling shouldtake shorter time (rather the opposite), just that they should mean something.

    If you just get something every 5th level you have tons of useless padding, at least I get far more a kick from gaining a new skill then just some more HP (of which I already have 20K).

    Most MMO players enjoy gaining power as they play, I do and you do. And you would still do that with lesser levels, the difference is that leveling would start to mean something again.

    You can certainly have a MMO with a thousand levels and having you level up every 10 minutes but for me that is just meaningless fluff, particularly since leveling is incredible easy today.
    The reward you feel is greater if there is fewer levels and 20 is a good number, have worked for D&D the last 50 years after all.
    Yeah but that's the point, we enjoy gaining levels that have meaning. In a pvp game that means more power. In a pve game that should be more power and perhaps alterations on current skills or adding skills.

    Not every game is Lord of the Rings online where they add a few levels that only get you more hit points and that is about it.
    I love leveling if I feel the increase. But I can see where the falloff is for people who worked really hard for something. 

    The problem here is that those players think that leveling is a one time thing and THEN you can rest and enjoy yourself. But these games are meant to include all sorts of progression "always". That is the game.

    I've never understood why some players complained at adding new levels but now I do. It's because they don't enjoy the leveling process and are just looking to get it over with.

    So in truth, they are playing the wrong types of games.

    I should add, I really enjoy how Black Desert does it where there is a soft cap. You can always level, but it just slows down immensely at a certain point.
    I think the problem comes when the alternative progression gets effected by the new level increase.

    There's always some form of progression, and if you look at it as basically invalidating older progressions, then the frustration makes sense. If the leveling takes X amount of time, and lets say the people didn't enjoy that and wanted to get it over with, but then the gear progression (the part the person wants to do) takes X times 10 amount of time. The devs then decide, hey lets add another 10 levels and make the gear progression pointless that you worked towards, then it instantly invalidates any of what you worked towards.

    I love BDO's level system. It feels like you are still progressing even though it's small, it adds to the grind a bit, you aren't just grinding to grind, you are also progressing in alternative paths.

    I also loved the way L2 used to be, where nobody was the cap, and they used to send out emails when someone hit certain levels and congratulate them. It felt like something hard to attain (even though I'm pretty sure the guy who was getting all of the level gates was botting hard). 
  • Swamp in Battle for Azeroth (look at the water reflection)

    It always makes me want to boot up and play WoW again any time I see screenshots. Maybe I'll buy a sub again. 
  • Xbox One X Official Review: The PC Gamer’s Console - MMORPG.com

    Aeander said:
    Torval said:
    Aeander said:
    Ginaz said:

    It really is a nice console. But man, it needs exclusives. Can't see a reason to get one the way I did with the PS4 and Switch. 

    Ugh, exclusives aren't good for gamers at all.
    Yes they are. Exclusives are the means by which platform competition even exists in our industry. Without competition, there is no innovation, quality control, or drive to provide better service. The results of a lack of competition are clear and can be readily seen in the cable/internet service sector.

    Our industry is dead without exclusives. The only people who cannot see that are those that are tunnel visioned on the games their platform isn't getting.
    Exclusives undermine competition, not promote it. You can't compete when someone else has an exclusive.

    Microsoft doesn't need exclusives. The industry needs to stop that practice and promote more cross platform interop. Remember how Sony was blowing their horn about cross play, but when Microsoft came around they're suddenly not for it.

    I have 2 PS4. I'm not happy when I have to buy something through the PS4 store as an exclusive. Or when I can only get it on the DS because it's only being released on that piece of hardware. That's not good for competition or the consumer.

    The internet was just up in arms over Microsoft buying EA and lamenting woefully how FIFA and NFL being exclusive would be horrible for the industry. Was that just PS4 and Switch owners crying about that?

    Or how about how Tim Sweeney have been bleating on and on about how the Windows 10 store will kill gaming and quash competition?
    Aside from most of your statement being bullshit, EA's exclusivity contract with the NFL/FIFA is not a good example. That's not a platform exclusive, but rather effective ownership of an entire genre, meaning that there can be no meaningful competition in that genre (as attempting to compete in the sports genre without the official brand is tantamount to suicide). It's a totally different situation which you have conflated with platform exclusivity for the sake of your argument. An exclusive game is the equivalent of Taco Bell's frequent limited time menu items - attempting to compete by offering new, exclusive experiences. EA's brand deal is the equivalent of taco bell patenting the taco (outrageous and absurd, but valid for the scenerio). 

    But if you wish to argue this, why don't you suggest an alternative? By what means can a console distinguish itself other than exclusive games? If hardware power alone was enough, the PS3 would not have lost to the XBOX 360 and Wii and the PSP/Vita would have driven Nintendo's inferior hardware out of the market. People do not give a shit about hardware when games are lacking. 

    Most people buy a console related to what exclusives that console has not the performance of the console itself. 

    If I had the option between 3 consoles with the same games, I would just buy whatever my friends bought at that point. Keeping exclusives on a console promotes the other companies to try to make something to bring that crowd to their console and furthers the development of new ideas. We don't want to lose that. Otherwise it will all turn into one console and nothing would advance.  

    It would force everyone to compete on the hardware level instead of the software level. I would much rather have innovation on games than innovation on performance. 
  • Why Is Blizzard Inviting Former Warcraft 3 Pros to Anaheim? Warcraft 3 Remastered? - MMORPG.com New

    josko9 said:
    RTS genre is dead. Warcraft 4 would need to be an open-world RPG, and that's never going to happen.

    Remaster is a huge possibility, although if it's anything like Starcraft, it will turn out to be a massive disappointment as well. They really need to do way better.
    The RTS genre isn't dead it just hasn't had a big release in a long while. I still know quite a few people playing SC2 religiously, and when the remaster of SC1 came out my entire friend list was playing that. 

    We just need something to come out and bring a big boost to the genre again, like Street Fighter 4 did with modern arcade fighters. 
  • Sources Claim Disney Has Reached Out to Ubisoft & Activision About Star Wars Games - Star Wars: Batt

    Herase said:

    Bethesda, Bethesda, Bethesda. That's what I want to hear.

    Y tho?

    They make relativily good story based games and the SW franchise is in desperate need of one.

    They released quite few games last year all worth the price tag, no nickel and dimming, just straight game play. I might be wrong, but I don't think any of their games released last year had loot boxes in and the DLC is done better than most with it adding on to the base game, not adding base game content back in.
    They make great games, but they also make extremely buggy games and rely on modders to fix their bugs. I'm not saying that's worse than EA, but I want an experience that doesn't involve a ton of issues that other people that aren't the company have to fix. 

    They do nickel and dime quite a bit just in different ways. They released how many versions of Skyrim now at full price every single time? PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One, PSVR, Switch, PC, the legendary edition for each platform (other than switch and PSVR). 

    Bethesda was also one of the first companies to introduce cosmetic DLC, with the Horse Armor. It isn't a big deal now but at the time it was seen as relatively gross.